Talk:Popverse

Redirect templates

PopVerse and Popverse can't both be avoided double redirects to each other. One of them is a miscapitalization. If I've got it backwards, please fix that. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) (Moved user talk page comment to the article in question. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC))

@Dicklyon and Trailblazer101: instead of having a discussion on various user talks, can we solve the issue here? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, Popverse is correct name of the outlet & PopVerse is the miscapitalization (see: https://www.thepopverse.com/about-us). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that we agree that Popverse is correct and PopVerse is the miscapitalization. It makes no sense for the former to declare avoided redirect to the latter, as if the latter is the place where one might some day create an article. I don't understand why that fix has been reverted a couple of times now. Maybe Trailblazer101 can explain their thinking here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: At this revert, you say in edit summary, "...this is so people who go to either of these redirects knows another redirect points to the same target in case either one gets expanded into an article....", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a double redirect is, why it is avoided, and what the tag is about. A double redirect is "A redirect that points to another redirect", as it says there, not another redirect that points to the same place as some other redirect. It might have made sense for the miscapitalized PopVerse to redirect to the correct Popverse, except there's no article there, just another redirect. So PopVerse was changed to redirect to the target, avoiding the double redirect. But that doesn't make Popverse an avoided double redirect, since Popverse would never had redirected to the miscapitalized PopVerse. Got it? So I'll fix it again. Please don't revert again, per WP:3RR. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: You had a similarly confused edit summary in this revert. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the avoided double redirects temp is NOT saying that "PopVerse" or "Popverse" are double redirects. It is solely used to avoid one pointing to the other, ie, avoiding a double redirect from existing in the first place. Including the template does not cause any internal errors with the redirects' functionality, so I am not sure why this has become an issue. I was not saying that either were double redirects, so not sure where you got that implication from, especially since the temp uses "avoided" in its description and name. I included the temp on the Popverse redirect so it could track that "PopVerse" is another redirect pointing to the same subject, and if Popverse was made into an article, it notifies that "PopVerse" should then be updated in accordance with that. Both redirects point to the same entry and, to avoid one becoming a double redirect of another (as in, redirecting to a redirect, and not a duplicate redirect, which these both are), both point to the same location and via this temp, both acknowledge each other's existence in case one is ever made into an article (which, ideally would be the correctly capitalized one), though not everyone would know which one is correct since both have been in use, hence the temp being used in addition with the miscapitaliztion and incorrect name temps. The whole point of these redirect template tags is to provide transparency for those who may click on a "PopVerse" redirect left behind so they can understand which is the correct link. Obviously, "Popverse" is the correct link here, but BOTH link to the same spot.

Since you have reverted back to your preferred version multiple times while this is being discussed and after it has already been contested, I would encourage you to cease your editing as it can veer into WP:OWN territory, and you could also be blocked for 3RR (and not abiding by the WP:Bold, revert, discuss process) as well if you continue to revert back to your preference, so I would encourage you to be WP:CIVIL here and WP:Assume good faith rather than waving 3RR here and telling others to not revert you just because you disagree. Bear in mind of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. This is just a template tag on a redirect to aid in proper navigation, nothing to get all worked up over or risk violating a policy for.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Reason: Relevant areas with outside input for this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying those. Hopefully someone will respond. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I notified WT:MOSCAPS#Current as well. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've been working on miscapitalized redirects for a long time, at least many hundreds of them, and can't recall ever before coming on something like what you've done here, where the correctly capitalized one is tagged as an avoided double redirect due to the existence of a miscapitalized one. Have you ever seen anything like this? Can you find an example? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably you'll get the point better if you carefully read the documentation at Template:R avoided double redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 and Sariel Xilo: I don't know what it takes to get someone to comment here, but the question could easily be resolved by either of you if you'd so as I suggested above, and read the documentation and see if there are any other places where someone has made the interpretation you've made. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that this is not my first/main priority and not everyone is able to respond when you'd like them to. Have patience, there is WP:NORUSH. This is just a redirect, nothing much to fuss over. It doesn't matter what your experience may be or what other examples are, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It matters what is truly helpful for keeping track of these two redirects. From the documentation, it states "To avoid a double redirect, any alternative-title redirect must also target the same broader article, and must be updated if the redirect from the more specific title is converted to a separate article. (add emphasis in bold). One could consider "Popverse" a different capitalization of the incorrect title "PopVerse", but only "Popverse" should become an article if able to, so that is my rationale in using the temp on here, as well. Also, the temp itself states "This is a redirect from an alternative title or related topic of (redirect page name), another redirect to the same title." It does not specify that the main/correct redirect ought to not call to the more incorrect one, and I still don't see how removing this temp from this redirect would be helpful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I support Trailblazer101's explanation of using this redirect. I also don't understand the urgency around this; maybe another editor will chime in since various projects have been notified but this isn't a major concern (versus something like copyright or BLP). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's urgent, but it's a uniquely weird mistake that could easily be corrected if either of you would read the documentation carefully. The reason I care is that it shows up on the report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; that's one line that would go away if we fixed this one thing, which is why I noticed and fixed it in the first place. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case, if anything, the linked miscapitalization of "PopVerse" is only showing up as a single instance on that report because it is used via the avoid double redirect temp. My understanding is such links are not harmful and maybe that could be addressed at the report to potentially bypass these types of links as being flagged as such, when they are really just here to aid in proper navigation and an understanding of what is the intended correct target. If "PopVerse" was being linked to in several articles, then I would be more concerned about it, though the fact that it is only linked from this temp makes me believe there may be an alternative route to take in preventing this from being in the report to begin with, such as a potential whitelist of temps like the ADR one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This error is unique. It doesn't make sense to change the report to fix one screwup by two guys who don't understand the documentation. And it's useful that the report captured this unique error, so we could fix and discuss and educate you and maybe prevent more such in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Start with the "Purpose": "Some redirects should target other redirects, but that is not allowed by Wikipedia software. A redirect that targets another redirect is called a 'double redirect'." That is, a double redirect is "avoided" if there might otherwise have been a double redirect, if it were allowed, and if' this redirect should target the other. PopVerse should target Popverse, being a miscapitalization, but Popverse should not target PopVerse. So no double redirect has been avoided. Usage instructions go on to say "Use this rcat to tag any mainspace redirect from a title that should target another redirect" (my emphasis). The section "Usage with other redirect categories" is also informative, referring as it does to "the initial redirect", the target that's being avoided. So let's just fix this unique error, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, although I don't think that is a sign of WP:AGF. We all want what is best and I offered up a potential compromise, though you seem intent on only your preference prevailing (which raises potential WP:OWN concerns). The temp is useful to have on this redirect, so I do not think it should be removed, though I will remove it because I don't think this is worth all of this trouble (or my time). Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the right thing to do in this case, editor Trailblazer101. I don't always agree with editor Dicklyon, and I can certainly see your reasoning on this; however, the R avoided double redirect rcat template was indeed designed to be used only on those redirects that would point to another redirect if double redirects were allowed by the Wikimedia software. If an article were to be created, it would most certainly be at "Popverse", so this redirect is not considered an avoided double redirect. Any other redirects that would point to Popverse if it weren't a redirect would be considered avoided double redirects. I was not this rcat template's creator, but that's how it was explained to me, and that's how it went into the [documentation]. If you think that the documentation is not clear enough and needs improvement, then please feel free to nail it down in a way that most everybody can understand. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Paine and Trailblazer. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)